Is it racist because blacks are not as good to eat as whites or because the reds eat them both?
I got the impression, reading it, that his being a racist wasn’t really to show him as being viciously baby-eating evil (well, he kinda was, but still…), but just as kind of an ass, ridiculously old-fashioned. Like if Wells’ Time Traveler had shown up to help them, but he insisted on taking a gentlemanly afternoon tea in the middle of a crisis, and expressed reservations about working with a scientist who was part gasp! Welsh.
Hemingway from A Farewell to Arms - Henry is coming to see Cat, who is dying in the hospital.
She sees him and, in her bed, says “Here comes Othello from the wars”
“Othello was a n****r”" is the reply.
Okay then.
Keep in mind the story was published in 1951. What would be considered unthinkable today would have just been considered low class back then.
I re-watched The Professionals a couple of weeks ago. There’s a scene at the beginning where Grant is introducing Fardan to the team he’s assembled. After he introduces Sharp, he casually asks Fardan, “You have any problems working with a negro?” Fardan says no and that’s the end of it.
Once again, 1966. It was a different time.
What is the racism there? The film is set during the Mexican revolution, I don’t see how the question or word is out of place in that setting.
(Side note in Trinidad I hear negro used every single day by people in the same sense black or African American is used in the US, it used to throw my brain for a loop and negress still does.)
The Love Talker by Elizabeth Peters. A mystery/romance that has the heroine investigating a photo of fairies. At one point someone she’s talking to brings up that “fairies” is a slang term for homosexuals and she goes off on a rant about how appalling it is that the beautiful mythological concept is ruined by those disgusting people. (Can’t recall the exact words but it was clear she thought homosexual people were criminal abominations.)
And this is the heroine, someone that is supposed to be liked.
The book was written in the 1970s, and Elizabeth Peters is an author I really like. I’ve read other books by her and none of the others have vitriolic statements like this.
/The statement pertained to sexuality, not racism, but it did slap me in the face when I came to that part.
/ Also Mary Balogh’s Irresisitible had the heroine suffering from a loss of self worth because her first husband turned out to be a homosexual. Horrors :0
I was in a play many years ago called The Male Animal by James Thurber and Elliott Nugent. It was lightly comic and generally high-minded, punctuated by idiot blathering by the “colored” maid. It was from 1940, so one must make allowances for cultural context, but because of the writing team involved, we all had a natural inclination to credit the great James Thurber with the good parts and the relatively unknown Elliott Nugent with the weak stuff. On further investigation, it is my considered opinion that Nugent wrote the bulk of it and that Thurber’s contribution was mainly Cleota (the maid)'s malapropisms.
I had to read Hell in a Very Small Place, a nonfiction account of the siege of Dien Bien Phu, during high school and the author consistently referred to the “little Korean General” Vo Nguyen Giap and used other weirdly condescending terms. It must have been written in the 60’s or later, these days it sounds pretty jarring, at least to me.
Especially given that Giap was Vietnamese. The book was written in 1967. I just did a quick look, and can’t find any description of Giap as either little or Korean. He does describe the Vietnamese soldiers as little a few times.
Surely the latter. The former is just based on the idea that black people do all the work and thus are both skinny and gamey, while the white folk get all fatted up.
If anti-Semitism counts as racism, there are some pretty jarring examples in early 20th-c. mystery writers such as Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers, although there are also some sympathetically depicted Jewish characters in them too.
Social attitudes in that era seem to have involved not just a lot of casual bigotry but also a weird sort of suspension of bigotry in the case of known and respected individuals. It doesn’t seem to be considered incongruous for a protagonist to encounter, say, a group of men speaking Yiddish in a railway station and think “I can’t stand these tiresome gabbling yids, and if they don’t stop blocking the doorway I’ll be late for my lunch with that nice Dr. Cohen.”
This sort of thing makes me go all 
but apparently back in the day few people batted an eyelash at it.
Christie was pretty much of her time and place, and doesn’t go out of her way to be anti-Semitic.
Sayers, on the other hand, was a vicious anti-Semite and Nazi-sympathizer who had very strong views that she expressed in her works on Christian theology. It is a great paradox that my favorite book, Sayers’ Busman’s Honeymoon, contains some of the worst examples of anti-Semitism that I have read. Although I love the book, I struggle with recommending it, or even putting it on lists of my favorites, because of the anti-Semitic parts. I always recommend it with the caveat that it has some extremely bigoted passages that can’t be excused by the era in which it was written.
Two other works that contain really troubling anti-Semtism are Oliver Twist and The Scarlet Pimpernel.
At least one of the Holmes stories surprised me with its lack of racism. I’ll spoiler the title for those who haven’t read it, since this is the “twist” in the story. In
The Adventure of the Yellow Facea man hires Holmes to check up on the suspicious behavior of his wife. It turns out she has a young half-black daughter from a previous marriage when she lived in America, and did not want her second husband to find out. When the truth is revealed the husband says something like “I cannot claim to be a very good man, but I am not as bad as that”, picks up the little girl and kisses her, and takes his wife and her daughter home. Watson describes this scene as being a touching one that he likes to think back on.
Christie’s novels often included some pretty broad ethnic stereotypes. These were sometimes presented as just stereotypes – in one novel someone speculates inaccurately that the murderer must have been an Italian, because an Englishman wouldn’t have been hot-blooded enough to stab his victim – but other times they’re apparently meant to be taken seriously, or at least as harmless cliches (e.g. a greedy Jewish jeweler).
I don’t think she’s described as being Jewish, but I was rather disturbed by the depiction of a “Mitteleuropean” housekeeper in A Murder is Announced (1950), who keeps mentioning that the Nazis killed her family…and this is apparently supposed to be funny. Everyone just sort of rolls their eyes and says “Oh, there goes Mitzi with that Nazi stuff again!”
It’s been a long time since I read the book, but I can’t even remember any Jewish characters in Busman’s Honeymoon. Where does the anti-Semitism come in? (Spoiler it if you like.)
It really is absurd to stigmatize someone calling their dog or cat “nigger”, or, indeed, using that word in other contexts that are not actually about demeaning black people, as racism. Such usage says absolutely nothing about the user’s actual racial attitudes. Even the taboo on the word that we live under now has much more to do with hypersensitivity about being mistaken for a racist than with actual racism.
On a quite different note, however, some of T.S. Eliot’s poems - Gerontion, Sweeney among the Nightingales, and Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar spring to mind - are horribly antisemitic. This is not casual or incidental antisemitism, it is integral the poems.
Not for nothing was his name an anagram of “toilets”.
Cite? Where does the idea that DLS was a Nazi-sympathizer come from? I’ve never seen this. I seen the suggestion that she was anti-semitic based on the language in one or two of the books but I’ve never seen this. She was of her time and her characters are of their time. People were casually racist and it would be absurd if 1930s characters had attitutes from the 90s and later. And always remember Nivens law “There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot.”
No need for spoilers: As far as I remember it it is just references to one minor character in a mildly derogatory way (he’s a loan shark/debt collector) but it certainly doesn’t contain"some of the worst examples of anti-Semitism that I have read".
That’s certainly true for fictional characters or real people back in the day when “nigger” was so commonly used that many non-black people just didn’t notice its offensiveness. Likewise, using colloquial terms that happened to be originally derived from “nigger”, like “niggerhead” for a particular rock formation or “niggertoe” for a particular kind of nut, wouldn’t necessarily imply racism on the part of somebody in those days.
Nowadays, though, anybody who called their dog or cat “Nigger” would have absolutely no excuse for not understanding how offensive it is, and it sure as hell would say something about the user’s “actual racial attitudes”.
Nonsense. The use of “nigger” by a non-black person nowadays is pretty much universally regarded as highly offensive, and there is no reason except “actual racism” for anyone to use it.
In the Little House on the Prairie book series, Ma Ingalls sure hated those indians.
Yes, but does any non-black person apart from an actual racist (or people mentioning rather than using the word, in discussions like this) ever actually use the word these days? Maybe if they are totally out of touch they might, but if senile old grandpa Bob, who you happen to know marched with Martin Luther King, gave it as a name to his dog, you wouldn’t think he was trying to offend anyone, and, unless you were a fool, you wouldn’t take offense, you would just think he was out of it.
It has become a bigger taboo than racism itself. I suspect that, these days, even amongst actual unashamed racists it only used by the very stupidest amongst them (unless they are deliberately trying to offend).
Agreed. That’s why I was so surprised by Habakuk Jephson’s Statement, as I said.